As far as I understand, there is not much of a performance difference when attacking smaller compared to larger hashlists (fast hashes) with oclHashcat.
For (self) education purpose I have put together a quick and dirty bash script for my single 7970 Ubuntu 12.04 LTS setup. Basically doing bruteforce against 1-6 characters ?a, two PACK-generated masks (7-8 full and 9-11 with a treshold of 22 each running 10 min), rules against two large and one small wordlist (splitlenged), hybrid attacks and a basic fingerprint attack against 10k worst passwords then fingerprint against found passwords.
Question: On a bigger hashlist (100k-500k) of fast hashes should I first run the bruteforce/mask attacks and then the wordlist attacks or vice versa - assuming for this case in theory both "blocks" of attacks would find 25% of the passwords? In other words: Does one of the modes benefit from less left hashes?
I haven't found info on that in the wiki or forum, maybe just because it does not make any time difference when running the script.
For (self) education purpose I have put together a quick and dirty bash script for my single 7970 Ubuntu 12.04 LTS setup. Basically doing bruteforce against 1-6 characters ?a, two PACK-generated masks (7-8 full and 9-11 with a treshold of 22 each running 10 min), rules against two large and one small wordlist (splitlenged), hybrid attacks and a basic fingerprint attack against 10k worst passwords then fingerprint against found passwords.
Question: On a bigger hashlist (100k-500k) of fast hashes should I first run the bruteforce/mask attacks and then the wordlist attacks or vice versa - assuming for this case in theory both "blocks" of attacks would find 25% of the passwords? In other words: Does one of the modes benefit from less left hashes?
I haven't found info on that in the wiki or forum, maybe just because it does not make any time difference when running the script.